Running head: FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS, PARENTAL

Running head:!FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS AND CONFIRMATION 1!

FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS, PARENTAL MODELING, AND THE

INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF CONFIRMATION TO

ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

by

JORDAN EMILY YOUNG

Bachelor of Science, 2011 Texas Christian University

Fort Worth, TX

Submitted to the Faculty Graduate Division

College of Communication Texas Christian University In partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

May 2014

FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS AND CONFIRMATION! !!!3!

Family Communication Patterns, Parental Modeling, and the

Intergenerational Transmission of Confirmation to

Romantic Relationships

Jordan Emily Young

Texas Christian University, 2014

Advisor: Paul Schrodt, Ph.D.

Using Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s (2002a) family communication patterns (FCPs) theory

and Bandura’s (1973) social learning theory, this study explored FCPs (i.e., conversation and

conformity orientations) and (inter)parental confirmation as predictors of young adults’

confirmation (i.e., acceptance and challenge) in their romantic relationships. Participants

included 181 young adults from intact families who completed online questionnaires concerning

their perceptions of their family and romantic relationships, including family conversation and

conformity, interparental confirmation, parental challenge and acceptance, and romantic partner

challenge and acceptance. Results indicated that family conformity orientation was negatively

associated with communicating acceptance to a romantic partner, while family conversation

orientation was positively associated with both accepting and challenging one’s romantic partner.

A Hotelling’s t-test and partial correlations for (inter)parental confirmation and enacted romantic

partner confirmation revealed that young adults’ parents may, in fact, serve as influential

examples of how to validate and acknowledge a romantic partner’s perspective during

interpersonal conversations. Furthermore, the results offer evidence that sex differences may

exist when considering which parent is more influential in modeling confirming behavior for

sons and daughters. Among the more important implications of this study is the finding that


FCPs and (inter)parental confirmation were predictive of self-to-partner confirmation even after

controlling for the reciprocity effect that may already exist within the romantic relationship.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Theoretical Warrant Page 8

Family Communication Patterns Theory Page 8

Confirmation Theory Page 13

Parental Modeling Page 18

Method Page 23

Participants Page 23

Procedures Page 24

Measures Page 24

Data Analysis Page 26

Results Page 26

Table 1 Page 27

Figure 1 Page 29

Figure 2 Page 31

Discussion Page 35

References Page 47

Bibliography Page 47

Appendix Page 56


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

1. Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Among all Variables Page 27 2. Figure 1: Interaction effect of family conversation orientation

and conformity orientation as predictors of self-to-partner (SP) acceptance Page 29

3. Figure 2: Interaction effect of family conversation orientation

and conformity orientation as predictors of self-to-partner (SP) challenge Page 31


Family Communication Patterns, Parental Modeling, and the Intergenerational Transmission of

Confirmation to Romantic Relationships

Over the past several decades, scholars have devoted increased attention to the

communication behaviors that enhance relational quality in romantic relationships, including

relational maintenance behaviors (Fowler, Pearson, & Beck, 2010; Rabby, 2007), humor (Hall,

2013), expressions of commitment (Weigel, Brown, & O’Riordan, 2011) and nonverbal

immediacy (Guerrero, 1997; Myers & Ferry, 2001), to name a few. One such behavior that is

likely to enhance the quality of both dating and marital relationships is confirmation. Defined as

“the degree to which messages validate another as unique, valuable, and worthy of respect”

(Dailey, 2006, p. 436), confirmation is positively associated with a myriad of relational

outcomes, as individuals have a primary need to be accepted and challenged by others in order to

achieve a strong sense of global self-worth, mental health, and well-being (Buber, 1965; Ellis,

2002; Laing, 1961; Sieburg, 1975). Confirmation has been studied in a variety of relational

contexts, including teacher-student (Ellis, 2000), healthcare (Dangott, Thornton, & Page, 1979),

parent-child (Dailey, 2006), and romantic relationships (Dailey, Romo, & Thompson, 2011).

Despite what scholars know about confirmation, however, questions remain regarding how

individuals learn (dis)confirming behaviors and why they choose (or choose not to) enact these

behaviors in their romantic relationships. Since confirmation is such a powerful behavior within

interpersonal relationships, approaching these unanswered questions will enhance our theoretical

understanding of why some romantic couples are more satisfied and closer than others.

The family of origin plays a prominent role during the developmental years of an

individual’s childhood, and it continues to do so throughout adolescence and into adulthood. Due

to this inherent influence, scholars have examined the effects of family communication patterns


(FCPs) on a myriad of behavioral, information processing, and psychosocial outcomes, including

aggression, family conflict, cognitive complexity, political identity, physical health, and self-

esteem, to name a few (Schrodt, Witt, & Messersmith, 2008). Likewise, scholars have examined

social modeling in parent-child relationships (for a review, see Kunkel, Hummert, & Dennis,

2006), a process that may also account for the degree to which individuals enact certain

behaviors within their romantic relationships. As Bandura (1973) posited, “human behavior is to

a large extent socially transmitted, either deliberately or inadvertently, through the behavioral

examples provided by influential models” (p. 68). Taken together, then, both FCP and social

modeling theories suggest that the family of origin plays a meaningful role in how individuals

learn to communicate in their interpersonal relationships outside of the family. Thus, it stands to

reason that FCPs and parental modeling should be associated with the amount of confirming

behavior people enact in their romantic relationships.

To investigate these issues, the primary purpose of this study was to compare the unique

and combined contributions of FCPs and (inter)parental confirmation to young adults’ use of

confirmation in their romantic relationships.

Theoretical Warrant

Family Communication Patterns Theory and Young Adult Children’s Confirmation

Family communication patterns (FCP) and their associations with familial and individual

behaviors have been widely studied for several decades, as the family system serves as the

primary socialization agent for children and influences behavior long after children have left

home (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997). Within the family of origin, cognitive orientations (i.e.,

schemas) of how family members should interact emerge as a function of parent-child interaction

and the desire to achieve a shared social reality which, in turn, shapes how individuals perceive


their social environment and communicate within and outside of the family (Fitzpatrick &

Ritchie, 1994).

FCP theory was originally advanced by McLeod and Chaffee (1972, 1973) to describe

how families develop and maintain relatively stable and predictable ways of communicating with

one another. McLeod and Chaffee based their explanation of family communication on the

cognitive theory of coorientation. Coorientation refers to “two or more persons focusing on and

evaluating the same object in their social or material environment” (Koerner & Fitzpatrick,

2002b, p. 52). When individuals are aware of their shared focus, then each person has two

different cognitions: a personal evaluation of the object, and a perception of how others evaluate

the object. These two cognitions determine the equivalence of the combined evaluations of the

object (i.e., agreement); however, dyads and families do not necessarily always share the same

perception of the objects in their social world, nor is agreement always necessary to create a

shared social reality. For example, a son and his father may both be cooriented toward a sign that

reads “free puppies.” The son sees this as an opportunity to adopt a pet, whereas the father sees

the outcome of a free puppy as being a major financial undertaking. Although father and son

may disagree about the opportunity that the sign presents, if they accurately perceive each

other’s perspective on the sign, then the accuracy of their perceptions reflects a part of their

shared social reality.

According to McLeod and Chaffee (1972, 1973), individuals can achieve a shared reality

in two distinct, but interrelated ways. First, the process of socio-orientation emphasizes the

relationships between family members. Families who are perceived as high in this orientation

rely on other members’ evaluations to influence their own interpretations. In light of the example

of the son and father, the son may be inclined to agree with his father’s point of view if he is


from a high socio-oriented family because of the importance of parental authority and hierarchy

in family decision-making. Second, the process of concept-orientation focuses more on the

actual topic being discussed and emphasizes different family members’ viewpoints and ideas.

Families who are perceived as high in this orientation will discuss varying viewpoints of the

object and arrive at some point of agreement or compromise. From this perspective, the son and

father might bring up the possibility of adopting a puppy in a family discussion and talk about

the positives and negatives associated with this kind of undertaking. McLeod and Chaffee were

specifically interested in examining how parents socialize their children to process information

within mass media messages; however, scholars soon realized that these orientations that shape

the social reality of a family extend into a variety of contexts outside of the family.

Families create social realities through their interactions with one another and therefore

develop schemas of understanding that members use to produce and interpret messages

(Fitzpatrick & Ritchie, 1994; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a). These family schemata are deeply

engrained, cognitive structures that often influence the intergenerational transmission of

communicative behaviors, such as social withdrawal, relational maintenance, and reticence from

parents to their children (Fitzpatrick, Marshall, Leutwiler, & Kremer, 1996; Fowler et al., 2010;

Kelly et al., 2002). Despite the value of McLeod and Chaffee’s (1972, 1973) framework,

however, Ritchie (1990, 1991) reconceptualized the two orientations to make them more closely

align with the behavioral indicators of these schemas in family interactions. First, conversation

orientation (i.e., concept-orientation) is “the degree to which families create a climate in which

all family members are encouraged to participate in an unrestrained interaction about a wide

array of topics” (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a, p. 85). Families with a high conversation

orientation engage in a lot of interaction and sharing of individual activities, thoughts, and


feelings with one another. Families low in conversation orientation, conversely, do not consider

open and frequent exchanges of ideas, opinions, and beliefs to be of any value or to serve any

function within the family.

Second, conformity orientation (i.e., socio-orientation) is “the degree to which family

communication stresses a climate of homogeneity of attitudes, values and beliefs” (Koerner &

Fitzpatrick, 2002a, p. 85). Families high in this orientation value a hierarchical family structure

and place family interests before those of individual family members. High-conformity families

also create an environment where children are expected to obey parental authority. Children from

these families often depend on their parents to define and interpret situations for them, which

may consequently inhibit them from developing decision-making skills (Koerner & Fitzpatrick,

2002a). Conversely, children from low conformity-oriented families are often free to develop

their own opinions and views, which may help in personal growth in decision-making throughout

their life. Families with a low conformity-orientation also consider relationships outside of the

family to be equally as important as family relationships.

In addition to the unique associations that both orientations have with communication

behaviors in families, conformity and conversation orientations are often dependent on one

another and may interact to describe four family types (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1996). First,

consensual families are high in conversation and conformity, as their communication is

characterized by a tension to maintain harmony, interdependence, and hierarchy within the

family while also having an interest in open communication to explore new ideas. Young adult

children from this type of family understand the importance of communicating with others, but

will most likely adopt many of their parents’ values and beliefs on important issues. Second,

pluralistic families are high in conversation and low in conformity, where communication


includes open, unconstrained discussions that involve all family members. Young adult children

who come from this family of origin are more competent communicators, as they are better

equipped to make their own decisions and to engage in appropriate and effective conversations

due to familial openness and the sharing of individual thoughts and feelings with one another

(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997). Third, protective families are low in conversation and high in

conformity, as there is a heavy emphasis on obedience to parental authority and little concern for

open communication. Due to there being little value placed on practicing communication skills

within this type of family, young adult children may be less inclined to value interpersonal

conversations. Finally, laissez-faire families are low in conversation and conformity, and they

have very few and uninvolved interactions among family members. Because members from this

type of family are emotionally divorced from one another and engage in very little interaction

overall, the climate, in turn, may inhibit the development of important communication skills in

these young adult children (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1996; e.g., information processing, decision

making, conflict management skills). !

In light of previous evidence regarding FCPs and communicative behaviors, one might

suspect that the family communication environment in which individuals were raised may

influence the extent to which they display confirming behavior in their romantic relationships. In

fact, conversation-oriented families have faired well regarding positive outcomes of

interpersonal behavior in several studies. In their meta-analytical review of the FCP literature,

for example, Schrodt et al. (2008) concluded that young adult children from families high in

conversation orientation are more competent and flexible communicators in a variety of contexts,

including the degree to which they are sociable (Huang, 1999) and possess levels of emotional

intelligence (Keaten & Kelly, 2008), as well as the degree to which they use self-disclosure


(Huang, 1999), relational maintenance behaviors, and other skillful behaviors to maintain their

romantic relationships and friendships (Fowler et al., 2010; Koesten, 2004; Ledbetter, 2009).

On the other hand, most of the empirical evidence regarding conformity orientation

speaks to the deleterious effects that such an orientation has on behavioral outcomes in

interpersonal relationships. For example, Koerner and Cvancara (2002) found that conformity-

oriented family members were more self-oriented than other-oriented during interpersonal

conversations. This finding suggests that individuals who are more concerned about themselves

may be less apt to use confirming behavior with their romantic partner, given that confirmation

communicates a sincere and genuine interest in the other person’s perspective. Likewise,

Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002c) examined the influence of FCPs on the conflict behaviors of

young adult children in their romantic relationships and reported a positive correlation between

engaging in mutually negative behaviors with a romantic partner and conformity orientation

within the individual’s family of origin. Finally, Huang (1999) found a positive correlation

between conformity and self-monitoring, shyness, and low self-esteem, all of which may inhibit

an individual from communicating with a romantic partner in confirming ways.!

Confirmation Theory

Confirmation communicates a willingness to be interconnected with another individual

(Cissna & Sieburg, 1981). Confirmation theorists have suggested that individuals have an

underlying need to be verified by others in order to achieve personal and relational development

(Dailey, 2006). In fact, confirming behavior is arguably the greatest single factor in facilitating

healthy mental development and stability, as confirming messages help address individuals’

needs to validate and legitimize their perspectives (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).


Although confirming behaviors show a positive regard for the other, disconfirming

messages (a) communicate a sense of superiority, (b) inhibit the degree to which an individual

feels valued as a person, and (c) may influence individuals to value themselves to a lesser degree

(Dailey, 2006; Ellis, 2002). According to Sieburg (1985), confirming responses include

recognizing, acknowledging, and endorsing the other individual, whereby an individual is treated

as unique, valuable, and worthy of respect. Disconfirming behaviors, on the other hand, prompt

indifferent, impervious, and disqualifying responses that negate an individual’s feelings and

ideas. Although scholars have measured the frequencies of these different responses in

relationships (e.g., Garvin & Kennedy, 1986), it is more important to focus on how each

response conveys a degree of confirmation within various relationships. For example, a father

may recognize that his son is in the room by always maintaining eye contact with him, but he

may belittle him with disqualifying responses that elicit a higher degree of disconfirmation

within their relationship. Thus, confirmation can be conceptualized as occurring on a continuum

whereby each response communicates a varying degree of (dis)confirmation.

Early confirmation theorists started to examine this behavior more than five decades ago,

and they argued that confirmation is the most significant feature of human interaction, as without

it, individuals cannot realize their true identity (Buber, 1957, 1965; Laing, 1961; Sieburg, 1975).

Cissna and Sieburg (1981) further developed confirmation theory by emphasizing the importance

of the individual feeling endorsed, acknowledged, and recognized. Although these scholars

advanced our understanding of confirmation theory, Ellis (2002) identified a dearth of research

that empirically tested the extent to which individuals feel (dis)confirmed by others based on the

behaviors that had been previously identified. Therefore, Ellis developed and validated a

behavior-oriented, 28-item instrument that measured the extent to which children feel confirmed


by their parents (the Parent Confirmation Behavior Indicator scale or PCBI). Since the creation

of this instrument, scholars have been able to more accurately measure perceptions of

confirmation in a variety of communication contexts, including confirmation, affection, and

mental well-being in parent-child relationships (Schrodt, Ledbetter, & Ohrt, 2007), relational

satisfaction in both divorced and intact families (Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2012), and discussions of

weight management (Dailey, McCracken, & Romo, 2011).

Although confirmation is often considered synonymous with acceptance and positive

regard, Buber (1965) argued that confirmation also entails pushing the other to achieve a greater

potential (Dailey, 2010). In other words, relational partners can simultaneously accept and

challenge one another to reach an enhanced understanding of themselves and their capability for

success. In order to feel fully confirmed, it could be argued that acceptance must exist in the

presence of challenge and vice versa. For example, a romantic partner who demonstrates positive

regard by itself may enable positive self-evaluations of his/her romantic partner, but the

nonexistence of challenge may inhibit personal growth. Using this line of reasoning, then, Dailey

explicated two components of confirmation. First, acceptance is conceptualized as unconditional

positive regard (e.g., warmth, genuine listening, or affection perceived during interactions).

Second, challenge is conceptualized as behaviors that push or test the other’s existing abilities

and skills to succeed (e.g., asking questions, encouragement to maintain physical health, or

channeling negative emotions into more positive actions). Based on these two components,

Dailey found that children who experience greater confirmation from their parents learn that they

are valued and respected and are also encouraged to explore and debate their viewpoints and

emotions.


Confirmation has also been linked to adolescent openness with parents (Dailey, 2006),

individual well-being (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Sieburg, 1975), marital

satisfaction (Gottman, 1994), intimacy in relationships (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004), weight

management (Dailey et al., 2011), and conceptions of self (Dailey, 2010). In fact, some scholars

have argued that confirmation may be the greatest single factor ensuring mental development

and stability (Watzlawick et al., 1967). This behavior allows and encourages a transactional

continuum of competent communication between speakers so as to develop further

understanding of themselves, as well as their relationships. Even though interpersonal

communication scholars have devoted increased attention to confirmation within relationships,

further research is warranted so as to extend our theoretical understanding of why some

individuals confirm their romantic partners while others do not. In other words, although

scholars know how important confirmation is to the mental and social development of young

adult children, questions remain regarding how young adults learn (or fail to learn) to

communicate in confirming ways with their romantic partners. Furthermore, identifying

potential correlates of this influential behavior, such as the communication environment of an

individual’s family of origin, may allow scholars to understand why some romantic couples are

more satisfied and closer than others.

Nearly two decades ago, Noller (1995) posited that “how persons interact in their

interpersonal relationships depends to a large extent on how they have learned to communicate in

their families of origin” (p. 76). Given that interpersonal and family communication scholars

have devoted a great deal of attention to the association between FCPs and interpersonal

relationships inside and outside of the family, this study will test the degree to which both

orientations are predictive of young adults’ confirmation in their romantic relationships. Due to


substantial evidence that families high in conversation orientation are more competent and

flexible communicators (Schrodt et al., 2008), it could be argued that these individuals are more

willing and able to demonstrate confirming behaviors within their romantic relationship.

Although the direct effects of conformity orientation on communicative skills are less clear,

family communication scholars have reported a small to moderate inverse association between

conversation and conformity orientations (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b). If conversation

orientations are positively associated with confirming behaviors and inversely associated with

conformity orientations, then it stands to reason that conformity orientations may be inversely

associated with romantic partners’ confirming behaviors. Thus, the following hypotheses were

advanced to test this line of reasoning:!

H1: Family conversation orientation positively predicts the frequency with which young adult children communicate in confirming ways to their romantic partner. H2: Family conformity orientation negatively predicts the frequency with which young adult children communicate in confirming ways to their romantic partner. Moreover, scholars have indicated that family conversation and conformity orientations

often interact with one another so that the effects of one orientation often depend on levels of the

other orientation (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b; Schrodt et al., 2008). As noted earlier, four

types of families are created out of the interactions from these two orientations, and there are

likely systematic differences in young adult children’s reports of confirmation in their romantic

relationship as a function of membership in one of the four family types. Thus, a third hypothesis

was advanced:

H3: Family conversation and conformity orientations interact to predict young adult children’s confirmation in their romantic relationships, such that conformity orientation will moderate the positive association between conversation orientation and self-to-partner acceptance and challenge. !


Parental Modeling and Young Adult Children’s Confirmation

A second, but equally important goal of this study was to explore the degree to which

young adults’ confirmation in their romantic relationships varied as a function of parental

modeling. Indeed, young adult children may likely model the (dis)confirming behaviors of their

parents as they observe interparental confirmation (i.e., how confirming their parents are to each

other) and the degree to which their parents confirm them as children. Many social skills consist

of learned behaviors and, based on previous research, the earliest context in which individuals

learn these communication skills is within their family of origin (e.g., Burke, Woszidlo, &

Segrin, 2013; Burleson, Delia, & Applegate, 1992; Burleson & Kunkel, 2002). In fact, there is a

strong connection between communication that children observe in the family and children’s

social skills development (Burleson et al., 1992). Consequently, social learning theory (SLT)

(Bandura, 1973, 1986) offers a practical framework for understanding how communicative

behaviors are first learned in the family of origin. According to Bandura (1973), “human

behavior is to a large extent socially transmitted, either deliberately or inadvertently, through the

behavioral examples provided by influential models” (p. 68).

In families, SLT contends that children learn to communicate, in part, by watching their

parents interact as they develop into young adults (Bandura, 1986). These communication

behaviors are learned through four sub-processes of observational learning (Bandura, 1973).

First, attentional learning occurs when the individual attends to the behavior of another. This

process of attentional learning occurs regardless of whether or not the individual views the social

model as a valued and authoritative individual. That being said, one might reason that a child

will be more heavily influenced to pay attention to his/her parents’ behavior (than say, a sibling’s

behavior) because of the parents’ hierarchical role within the family. For example, a son may


observe his father asking his mother about her day at work and learn to model similar kinds of

thoughtful behaviors because he considers his father a valued, authoritative figure. Second, the

retention process occurs when the individual acquires and stores the observed behavior as an

internal guide for imitative actions and mental rehearsal. In light of the previous example, the

son may store his observations of the father’s behavior as something that he should do when he

is in a romantic relationship. In the motor reproduction process, the individual engages in the

behavioral enactment of what he/she has learned. Continuing with this example, the son may

have observed his father confirming his mother by demonstrating active listening, maintaining

meaningful eye contact when they are engaged in conversation, and asking her opinions on

important issues, and he may consequently combine these sets of behavior to form a model to

pattern his behavior after. Finally, the reinforcement and motivational processes include the

decision to engage in overt performance of the modeled behavior. A concept worth noting that

influences, to an extent, whether or not individuals choose to imitate behaviors of others is that

of self-efficacy, which is an individuals’ confidence in their ability to effectively produce the

observed behaviors (Bandura, 1986). If, for example, the son sees his father’s confirming

behavior toward his mother as a rewarding experience due to their relational satisfaction and

believes that he can enact this same behavior in an effective and appropriate manner, then it

stands to reason that he will consider this model as having a high-function value for him.

Even though SLT has been used most often in research that examines the

intergenerational transmission of familial aggression (e.g., Aloia & Solomon, 2013; Durtschi,

Cui, Donnellan, Lorenz, & Conger, 2010; Weber & Patterson, 1997), scholars have recently

begun to examine the intergenerational transmission of other communication behaviors, such as

social skills in children (e.g., Burleson & Kunkel, 2002; Gardner & Cutrona, 2004). For


example, Taylor and Segrin (2010) tested the degree to which young adults’ perceptions of

parental gender roles and conflict styles were predictive of their own gender roles and conflict

styles. They found that parental gender roles and conflicts styles were intergenerationally

transmitted from both parents to their young adult children, and that these beliefs in young adult

children, in turn, were predictive of their relational locus of control and psychological distress

(i.e., depressive symptoms). Specifically, young adults who held traditional gender roles and

practiced distributive conflict management styles (including threats and coercion) reported

having a more external relational locus of control, whereas young adults who held egalitarian

gender roles and practiced integrative conflict management styles reported a more internal

relational locus of control (i.e., a form of self-efficacy). When their findings are interpreted in

light of the present study, one might expect young adults who witness their parents being

confirming with each other to, in turn, be confirming in their own romantic relationships. Thus,

the following hypothesis was advanced to test this line of reasoning:

H4: Interparental confirmation is positively associated with the frequency with which young adult children communicate in confirming ways to their romantic partner.

Not only might children observe interparental (dis)confirmation within the family

environment, but they may also experience greater or lesser degrees of (dis)confirmation in their

own relationships with each parent. Given SLT and previous research on the intergenerational

transmission of communication behaviors, one might reason that the amount of (dis)confirming

behavior children experience from their parents may be associated with the degree to which they

display these behaviors in their future romantic relationships. Despite this line of reasoning,

however, there is increasing evidence that mothers and fathers may parent their sons and

daughters differently based on gender roles, development, and identification (Bussey & Bandura,

1999). Horan, Houser, and Cowan (2007) found that mothers communicate significantly more


feminine messages to children, regardless of sex, whereas fathers communicated significantly

more masculine messages to their sons. In other words, a father may communicate with his son

in less confirming ways so as to appear more masculine, whereas he may communicate with his

daughter in more confirming ways so as to encourage greater levels of closeness. In Ellis’s

(2002) empirical validation of the PCBI, she found that although sons’ and daughters’

perceptions of global self-worth were associated with both parents’ confirmation behaviors,

parental confirmation was differentially associated with other dimensions of both sons’ and

daughters’ self-images. For example, fathers’ confirming behavior was more strongly related to

sons’ perceptions of their own intellectual abilities than to daughters’ perceptions of their

intellectual abilities. Likewise, fathers’ confirming behavior was more strongly associated with

daughters’ perceptions of their own appearance than was mothers’ confirming behavior.

Despite potential differences in the unique and combined contributions that parental

confirmation might make to the frequency with which young adults communicate in confirming

ways to their romantic partners, researchers have yet to explore similarities and differences in

cross-sex and same-sex parent-child interactions. Anecdotally, some individuals believe that

insight about a romantic partner can be gleaned by observing how he or she interacts with the

opposite-sex parent. Nevertheless, this speculation has not yet received empirical attention.

Given no previous evidence to advance a hypothesis, the following research question explored

how biological sex differences may influence the social modeling of confirmation in parent-child

relationships:

RQ1: Is parental confirmation from the opposite-sex parent a stronger predictor of the frequency with which young adult children communicate in confirming ways to their romantic partner than parental confirmation from the same-sex parent?


Of course, the degree to which a young adult confirms his or her romantic partner may

also vary as a function of reciprocity within the romantic relationship. In other forms of

communication inquiry, including self-disclosure research, scholars have identified a norm of

reciprocity (Jiang, Bazarova, & Hancock, 2013). Specifically, when an individual self-discloses

information in a relationship, the other individual may feel obligated to self-disclose something

of equal importance in return due to an imbalance of known information between the parties

involved. Likewise, Rubin’s (1975) theory of reciprocity supplements this norm. He posited that

when people are uncertain about the appropriate response to a behavior, they use their partners’

behaviors as a model from which to guide their response.

Although researchers have yet to examine the norm of reciprocity in the context of

confirming behavior, this study will control for this possibility when exploring whether or not

parents’ confirmation is associated with young adult children’s own confirmation in their

romantic relationships. Thus, a second research question was advanced to explore this issue of

reciprocity in confirming behavior:

RQ2: After controlling for their romantic partner’s confirmation, is parental confirmation associated with the frequency with which young adult children communicate in confirming ways to their romantic partner?

The final purpose of this study was to consider both the unique and combined

contributions of FCPs and parents’ confirmation to young adults’ use of confirmation in their

romantic relationships. According to FCP theory, young adult children who come from families

who are high in conversation and low in conformity (i.e., pluralistic families) will be better

equipped to use prosocial behaviors (e.g., confirmation) to strengthen their romantic

relationships. Indeed, Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s (2002c) research linking FCPs to young adults’

conflict behaviors in their romantic relationships supports this line of reasoning. Additionally, if


the intergenerational transmission of communication behaviors applies to the use of confirming

behavior, then the frequency with which a young adult child communicates in confirming ways

should be further enhanced when that child witnesses his or her parents communicating in

confirming ways to each other. Taken together, one or both of these independent variables (i.e.,

FCP orientations and perceived confirmation within the family) should predict young adults’

reports of confirmation in their romantic relationship above and beyond levels of confirmation

that can be explained by the norm of reciprocity. Hence, a final hypothesis was advanced to test

this line of reasoning:

H5: After controlling for their romantic partner’s confirmation, a linear combination of family communication patterns (i.e., conversation and conformity orientations) and interparental confirmation will positively predict the frequency with which young adult children communicate in confirming ways to their romantic partner.

Method

Participants

Participants included 181 young adult children from intact families1 with a mean age of

20.4 years (SD = 3.94). More than half of the participants were female (n = 114, 63%) and most

were Caucasian (n = 157, 86.7%), although 5% (n = 9) were Hispanic, 4.4% (n = 8) were African

American, 1.7% (n = 3) were Native American, .6% were Asian (n = 1), and 1.7% (n = 3) were

classified as “Other.” Most of the participants (67%) were in a serious romantic relationship (i.e.,

reported being in love and having discussed marriage), although 28% were in a casual romantic

relationship (i.e., reported having an emotional attachment but not in love), and 4% were married

or engaged to be married. Likewise, participants reported an average length of the relationship of

23.3 months (SD = 41.10). Finally, participants reported that their parents had been married an

average of 25 years (SD = 4.78).


Procedures

Participation was solicited from young adult students at a southwestern private university.

Upon securing human subjects approval, student volunteers who were at least 18 years of age

and currently in a romantic relationship completed an online survey. At the instructors’

discretion, students were awarded minimal course credit (less than 2%) for their participation in

the research. The questionnaire took approximately 30-45 minutes to complete.

Measures

Family communication patterns. Young adult children’s reports of FCPs were

operationalized using the Revised Family Communication Patterns (RFCP) instrument

(Fitzpatrick & Ritchie, 1994; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b). The RFCP is comprised of 26

statements asking participants to evaluate the extent to which their family communication

patterns reflect conversation orientation (15 items; e.g., “I can tell my parents almost anything”)

and conformity orientation (11 items; e.g., “When I am home, I am expected to obey my parents’

rules”) (see Appendix). Participants reported their level of agreement with each statement using a

7-point Likert scale that ranged from (1) Strongly disagree to (7) Strongly agree, with higher

scores representing higher conversation and conformity orientations. The validity and reliability

of the RFCP is well-established through several decades of previous research (see Schrodt et al.,

2008). In this study, the RFCP produced strong internal reliability for both conversation (! = .92)

and conformity (! = .82) orientations.

Parental, interparental, and romantic partner confirmation. Parental, interparental,

and romantic partner confirmation (i.e., acceptance and challenge) were measured using

modified versions of the Parent Confirmation Behavior Indicator scale (PCBI; Ellis, 2002), as

well as Dailey’s (2008) Parental Challenge Questionnaire (PCQ). Ellis (2002) provided evidence


of strong internal reliability for the PCBI, with previous alpha coefficients of .95 for both

mothers and fathers. The original PCBI scale consists of 28 items that test the extent to which

respondents feel their parents confirmed them and communicated to them that they are valuable,

unique human beings (e.g., “My mother gives me clear, direct responses to me during

conversations”). To help reduce respondent fatigue, the original measure was modified. To

assess interparental confirmation, participants reported on perceived mother-to-father

confirmation and father-to-mother confirmation using an abridged, 16-item global version of the

PCBI (e.g., “My father makes statements that communicate to my mother that she is a unique,

valuable human being” and “My mother demonstrates that she is genuinely listening when my

father is speaking about issues important to him.”). This modified version of the PCBI produced

excellent internal reliability for perceptions of both mother-to-father confirmation (! = .93) and

father-to-mother confirmation (! = .93).

To assess confirmation (i.e., acceptance and challenge) in parent-child and romantic

relationships, participants reported on their mother’s and father’s confirmation, their romantic

partner’s confirmation, and own confirmation toward their romantic partner using an abridged,

18-item version of the PCBI (e.g., for acceptance, “ I give my romantic partner undivided

attention when engaged in private conversations.”) and an abridged, 12-item version of the PCQ

(e.g., for challenge, “My partner pushes me to think about other people’s perspectives” ).

Responses to each measure were solicited using a 7-point Likert scale that ranges from (1)

Strongly disagree to (7) Strongly agree, with higher scores representing greater degrees of

acceptance and challenge within the participants’ parent-child and romantic relationships.

In previous research on parental challenge, Dailey’s (2008) PCQ demonstrated high reliability

for both the total sample (! = .95) and when assessed separately for mothers (! = .95) and fathers


(! = .96). The original PCQ scale consists of 30 items that test the extent to which respondents

feel that their parents pushed and stimulated them through interactions that tested, changed, or

advanced their abilities. To help reduce respondent fatigue, the original measure was modified

from 30 items to 12 items for each scale and reworded to assess parent-child, romantic partner-

to-self, and self-to-romantic partner challenge. In this study, the modified measures of

confirmation produced strong internal reliability estimates for mothers’ (! = .94) and fathers’ (!

= .94) acceptance, partner-to-self acceptance (! = .93), and self-to-partner acceptance (! = .91),

as well as for mothers’ (! = .91) and fathers’ (! = .91) challenge, partner-to-self challenge (! =

.87), and self-to-partner challenge (! = .87).

Data Analysis

Hypotheses 1, 2, and 4 were tested using Pearson’s product-moment correlations. RQ1

was addressed using Hotelling’s t-test for correlated correlations, and RQ2 was addressed using

partial correlations. H3 and H5 were tested using hierarchical regression analyses. For H3,

conversation and conformity orientations were entered at step one as predictors of young adults’

confirmation in their romantic relationship, followed by the interaction term at step two. For H5,

perceptions of romantic partner confirmation were entered at step one, followed by the

conditional effects of conversation orientation, conformity orientation, their interaction term, and

interparental confirmation at step two, as predictors of young adults’ confirmation in their

romantic relationship.

Results

Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and Pearson’s product-

moment correlations, for all variables in this study are reported in Table 1.

Run

ning

hea

d:!FA

MIL

Y C

OM

MU

NIC

ATI

ON

PA

TTER

NS

AN

D C

ON

FIR

MA

TIO

N

2

7!

Tabl

e 1

Des

crip

tive

Stat

istic

s an

d Pe

arso

n Pr

oduc

t-Mom

ent C

orre

latio

ns fo

r Al

l Var

iabl

es (N

= 1

81)

Var

iabl

e M

SD

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 1.

Con

vers

atio

n or

ient

atio

n 5.

06

1.05

--

2. C

onfo

rmity

orie

ntat

ion

3.96

1.

02

-.35*

* --

3. F

to M

Con

firm

atio

n 5.

29

1.06

.5

0**

-.18*

--

4. M

to F

Con

firm

atio

n 5.

32

1.06

.4

7**

-.24*

* .6

8**

--

5. S

to P

Acc

epta

nce

5.80

0.

77

.31*

* -.2

8**

.41*

* .5

6**

--

6. S

to P

Cha

lleng

e 5.

69

0.78

.4

2**

-.04

.30*

* .4

2**

.54*

* --

7. P

to S

Acc

epta

nce

5.67

0.

93

.20*

* -.1

3 .2

9**

.37*

* .6

8**

.47*

* --

8. P

to S

Cha

lleng

e

5.43

0.

81

.35*

* -.0

6 .2

4**

.34*

* .4

8**

.74*

* .4

9**

--

Not

e. F

= fa

ther

. M =

mot

her.

S =

self.

P =

par

tner

. *

p <

.05.

**

p <

.01.

Running head:!FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS AND CONFIRMATION 28!

H1 predicted that family conversation orientation would be positively associated with the

frequency with which young adult children communicate in confirming ways to their romantic

partner. This hypothesis was supported, as conversation orientation is positively associated with

both self-to-partner acceptance (r = .31, p < .001) and self-to-partner challenge (r = .42, p <

.001).

H2 predicted that family conformity orientation would be negatively associated with the


partner. The results indicate that conformity orientation is negatively associated with self-to-

partner acceptance (r = -.28, p < .001), but not with self-to-partner challenge (r = -.04, p = .56).

Thus, H2 was partially supported.

H3 predicted that family conversation and conformity orientations would interact to

predict young adult children’s confirmation in their romantic relationships, such that conformity

orientation would moderate the positive association between conversation orientation and self-to-

partner acceptance and challenge. The first hierarchical regression model, using family

conversation and conformity orientations as predictor variables and self-to-partner acceptance as

the criterion variable, produced a significant multiple correlation coefficient. At step one, the

model accounted for 12.6% of the total variance in self-to-partner acceptance, R = .36, F(2, 178)

= 12.85, p < .001, as both conversation orientation (! = .24, t = 3.21, p < .01) and conformity

orientation (! = -.19, t = -2.56, p < .05 ) emerged as significant predictors in the model. At step

two, an interaction effect of conversation and conformity orientations was statistically

significant, F-change (1, 177) = 4.39, p < .05, ! R2 = .021, bringing the total variance accounted

for in the model to 14.7%. This interaction effect was decomposed using the procedures

described by Aiken and West (1991) (see Figure 1).


Figure 1. Interaction effect of family conversation orientation and conformity orientation as

predictors of self-to-partner (SP) acceptance. SD = standard deviation.

"#$%##!

"#$&##!

#$###!

#$&##!

#$%##!

#$'##!

#$(##!

!"# !$%&# !$# !'%&# '# '%&# $# $%&# "#

!"#$$%&'(

$)*+%,-%(

)*+,*-./!0$1!23!

)*+,*-./!456+!

)*+,*-./!"0$1!23!


Examination of the beta weights revealed that family conversation orientation (! = .24, t

= 3.24, p < .01), conformity orientation (! = -.19, t = -2.58, p < .05), and the interaction effect (!

= -.15, t = -2.09, p < .05) were significant predictors in the model. The results indicate that

conformity orientation moderates the positive association between conversation orientation and

self-to-partner acceptance, such that the association is statistically significant at low (! = .39 , z =

3.72, p < 01) to moderate levels of conformity orientation (! = .23, z = 3.24 , p < .01), but

becomes statistically non-significant at high levels of conformity orientation (! = .07, z = .67 , p

= .67).

For the second regression model, using self-to-partner challenge as the criterion variable,

a significant multiple correlation coefficient was also obtained. At step one, the model accounted

for 18.6% of the total variance in self-to-partner challenge, R = .43, F(2, 178) = 20.35, p < .001,

with conversation orientation (! = .46, t = 6.35, p < .001) emerging as the only significant

predictor in the model. At step two, an interaction effect of conversation and conformity

orientations was statistically significant, F-change (1, 177) = 10.75, p < .01, !R2 = .047, bringing

the total variance accounted for in the model to 23.3%. An examination of the beta weights

revealed that family conversation orientation (! = .46, t = 6.52, p < .001) and the interaction

effect (! = -.22, t = -3.28, p < .01) were significant predictors in the model. A decomposition of

the interaction effect revealed that conversation orientation positively predicted self-to-partner

challenge at low (! = .67, z = 6.88, p < .01), moderate (! = .44, z = 6.54, p < .01), and high levels

of conformity (! = .20, z = 2.06, p < .05), although the positive effect of conversation orientation

on self-to-partner challenge became smaller in magnitude at higher levels of conformity (see

Figure 2). Thus, when both models are taken together, H3 was supported.


Figure 2. Interaction effect of family conversation orientation and conformity orientation as

predictors of self-to-partner (SP) challenge. SD = standard deviation.

"0$###!

"#$(##!

"#$'##!

"#$%##!

"#$&##!

#$###!

#$&##!

#$%##!

#$'##!

#$(##!

!"# !$%&# !$# !'%&# '# '%&# $# $%&# "#

!"./#00%*1%(

$)*+%,-%(

)*+,*-./!0$1!23!

)*+,*-./!456+!

)*+,*-./!"0$1!23!


H4 predicted that interparental confirmation would be positively associated with the


partner. The results indicate that father-to-mother confirmation is positively associated with both

self-to-partner acceptance (r = .41, p < .001) and self-to-partner challenge (r = .30, p = < .001).

Likewise, mother-to-father confirmation is positively associated with self-to-partner acceptance

(r = .56, p = < .001) and self-to-partner challenge (r = .42, p = <.001). Thus, H4 was supported.

RQ1 asked if parental confirmation from the opposite-sex parent is a stronger predictor of

the frequency with which young adult children communicate in confirming ways to their

romantic partner. To test whether or not there were significant differences in reports of parental

and interparental confirmation among male and female participants, a series of Hotelling’s t-tests

for correlated correlations was conducted, comparing each set of correlations for sons (n = 67)

and daughters (n = 114) separately.

For sons, mother-to-self acceptance (r = .72, p < .001) was a stronger predictor of self-to-

partner acceptance than father-to-self acceptance (r = .53, p < .001), t(64) = 2.34, p < .05.

Similarly, mother-to-self challenge (r = .60, p < .001) was a stronger predictor of self-to-partner

challenge than the degree to which fathers challenged their sons (r = .35, p < .01), t(64) = 2.70, p

<.01. For sons’ reports of interparental confirmation, however, no significant difference emerged

in the magnitude of the associations among mother-to-father confirmation (r = .55, p < .001),

father-to-mother confirmation (r = .44, p < .001), and self-to-partner acceptance, t(64) = 1.57, p

> .05; likewise, no significant difference emerged in the associations among mother-to-father

confirmation (r = .49, p < .001), father-to-mother confirmation (r = .37, p < .001), and self-to-

partner challenge, t(64) = 1.63, p > .05.


For daughters, Hotelling’s t-tests revealed no significant difference in the associations

between mother-to-self acceptance (r = .47, p < .001) and father-to-self acceptance (r = .57, p <

.001) and self-to-partner acceptance, t(111) = 1.19, p > .05. Additionally, there was no

significant difference in the magnitude of the associations between mother-to-self challenge (r =

.43, p < .001) and father-to-self challenge (r = .38, p < .001) and self-to-partner challenge, t(111)

= .55, p > .05. For daughters’ reports of interparental confirmation, however, perceptions of

mother-to-father confirmation emerged as a stronger predictor (r = .57, p < .001) of self-to-

partner acceptance than did perceptions of father-to-mother confirmation (r = .41, p < .001),

t(111) = 2.39, p < .05. On the other hand, no significant difference emerged in the associations

between mother-to-father confirmation (r = .36, p < .001), father-to-mother confirmation (r =

.26, p < .001), and self-to-partner challenge, t(111) = 1.31, p > .05. Taken together, the results

indicate that sons’ perceptions of their mother’s confirmation behavior (i.e., acceptance and

challenge) is a stronger predictor of the frequency with which they display confirming behavior

to their romantic partner than did perceptions of their father’s confirming behavior. For

daughters, however, only perceptions of mother-to-father confirmation emerged as a stronger

predictor of the frequency with which they communicate acceptance of their romantic partner

than did perceptions of father-to-mother confirmation.

RQ2 asked if interparental confirmation is associated with the frequency with which

young adult children communicate in confirming ways to their romantic partner after controlling

for their romantic partner’s confirmation. To address this question, partial correlations were

calculated between participants’ reports of their own confirming behaviors (i.e., acceptance and

challenge) and their perceptions of interparental confirmation, controlling for their perceptions of

their romantic partner’s confirming behaviors (i.e., acceptance and challenge). The results


indicate that after controlling for their romantic partner’s acceptance and challenge behaviors,

perceptions of mother-to-father confirmation (r = .42, p < .001) and father-to-mother

confirmation (r = .28, p < .001) are positively associated with self-to-partner acceptance.

Additionally, perceptions of mother-to-father confirmation (r = .22, p < .01) and father-to-

mother confirmation (r = .16, p < .05) are positively associated with self-to-partner challenge.

Thus, the results provide modest evidence to suggest that interparental confirmation is predictive

of young adults’ tendencies to confirm their romantic partners beyond the reciprocity of

confirmation that may already exist within the romantic relationship.

H5 predicted that, after controlling for their romantic partner’s confirmation, a linear

combination of FCPs (i.e., conversation and conformity orientations) and interparental

confirmation will positively predict the frequency with which young adult children communicate

in confirming ways to their romantic partner. Using hierarchical regression, two separate models

were obtained, entering partner-to-self confirmation (i.e., acceptance and challenge) at step one

followed by family conversation and conformity orientations, father-to-mother confirmation, and

mother-to-father confirmation at step two, as predictors of self-to-partner acceptance and

challenge.

The first model, using self-to-partner acceptance as the criterion variable, produced a

multiple correlation coefficient that was significant, R = .76, F(6, 174) = 40.67, p < .001,

accounting for 58.4% of the total variance in self-to-partner acceptance. After controlling for

partner-to-self acceptance (! = .54, t = 9.89, p < .001), family conformity orientation (! = -.13, t

= -2.46, p < .05) and mother-to-father confirmation (! = .32, t = 4.53, p < .001) emerged as

significant predictors in the model. The second model, using self-to-partner challenge as the

criterion variable, also produced a multiple correlation coefficient that was statistically


significant, R = .77, F(6, 174) = 44.20, p < .001, accounting for 60.4% of the total variance in

self-to-partner challenge. After controlling for partner-to-self challenge (! = .64, t = 11.46, p <

.001), family conversation orientation (! = .14, t = 2.28, p < .05) and mother-to-father

confirmation (! = .15, t = 2.16, p < .05) emerged as significant predictors in the model.

Consequently, the results of both regression models support H5.

Discussion

The primary goal of this study was to compare the unique and combined contributions of

family communication patterns (FCPs) and (inter)parental confirmation to young adults’ use of

confirmation in their romantic relationships. Overall, the results supported the theoretical line of

reasoning advanced in this study. Not only were FCPs predictive of confirmation in romantic

relationships, but the degree to which young adult children observed confirming behavior within

(and between) their parents’ relationship was also associated with the degree to which young

adults communicated in confirming ways with their romantic partner. In fact, after controlling

for the norm of reciprocity in partner confirmation (i.e., perceptions of partner challenge and

acceptance), FCPs and (inter)parental confirmation emerged as significant predictors of

confirmation enacted in participants’ romantic relationships. Consequently, the results of this

study extend FCP and confirmation theories by providing at least three implications worth

noting.

FCPs and Confirmation in Romantic Relationships

The first set of implications revolve around the conditional and interaction effects of

conversation and conformity orientations on the frequency with which young adult children

express confirmation (i.e., challenge and acceptance) to their romantic partner. When families,

and particularly parents, promote meaningful family interactions where activities, thoughts, and


feelings are shared among family members, young adult children are more likely to communicate

acceptance of their romantic partner and to challenge their partner to grow as an individual (H1).

One explanation for this result may be gleaned from Keaten and Kelly’s (2008) research, as these

scholars found a positive relationship between conversation orientation and emotional

intelligence. Evidently, family communication environments that encourage children to weigh

the opinions and perspectives of other family members are associated with an ability to

recognize, understand, and manage emotions. Conversations with parents about emotions, when

coupled with a relational schema that orients children to engage in open conversations about a

wide variety of topics, are likely to encourage the use of confirming behaviors in relationships

both in and outside of the family. Indeed, both acceptance and challenge require a high level of

competence so as to understand, acknowledge, and validate the other person’s perspective, so it

comes as no surprise that individuals from high conversation orientated families may be more

likely to enact confirming behaviors in their romantic relationships.

In terms of conformity orientation, however, the results offered only partial support for a

negative association with enacted confirmation in one’s romantic relationship. While a small, but

meaningful inverse association emerged between conformity orientation and self-to-partner

acceptance, the association between conformity and self-to-partner challenge was not statistically

significant (partial support for H2). One possible explanation for this lack of support can be

found in Dailey’s (2010) conceptualization of challenge, as challenge involves an individual

pushing or testing the other person’s abilities and skills. Challenging a romantic partner could

possibly be face threatening, so individuals from high-conformity families may seek to avoid the

potential conflict induced by this behavior. In fact, a family conformity orientation includes

elements of both structural traditionalism and conflict avoidance (Fitzpatrick & Ritchie, 1994;


Schrodt, 2005). This suggests, in turn, that while part of a family conformity orientation includes

a desire to maintain agreement within a romantic relationship, such a family orientation may also

encourage conflict avoidance given the perceived face threat of challenging a romantic partner to

grow as an individual. In terms of communicating acceptance, however, Koerner and Cvancara

(2002) offer an explanation for the negative association between conformity orientation and self-

to-partner acceptance. They found that conformity-oriented family members were more self-

oriented than other-oriented during interpersonal conversations, so this may inhibit individuals

from making statements that communicate unconditional positive regard toward their partner.

In addition to the conditional effects of both family communication orientations, the

results also revealed the presence of an interaction effect for FCPs, such that conformity

orientation moderated the positive associations between conversation orientation and self-to-

partner acceptance and challenge (H3). A closer inspection of Figures 1 and 2 reveals different

patterns of moderation for self-to-partner acceptance and challenge. Specifically, young adult

children from families high in conversation but low in conformity (i.e., pluralistic families)

report higher levels of self-to-partner acceptance than those from families high in conversation

and high in conformity (i.e., consensual families). This suggests that although a conversation

orientation helps cultivate the kinds of information-processing skills (e.g., perspective-taking)

and behavioral skills (e.g., perception-checking and decision-making) associated with confirming

behavior in other relationships, the benefits of such an orientation depend on the amount of

pressure parents exert to create a uniformity of attitudes, beliefs, and values among family

members. Indeed, parents who encourage open conversations with their children while

simultaneously expecting them to adopt their own viewpoints may be less likely to confirm their


children (see Table 1), which in turn may undermine the degree to which their children confirm

their own romantic partners as adults.

In terms of self-to-partner challenge, however, the results reveal a slightly different

pattern of moderation. Although young adult children from high conversation-oriented families

are still more likely to challenge their romantic partners than those from low conversation-

oriented families, the pattern of this interaction effect reveals that young adult children from

families low in conversation and high in conformity (i.e., protective families) may be more likely

to raise children who challenge their romantic partner than those from families low in both

conversation and conformity (i.e., laissez-faire families). One possible explanation for this

pattern can be found in the desire of parents from protective families to create and maintain

agreement and consistency in family members’ attitudes, beliefs, and values. Whereas this

pressure to conform to the parents’ viewpoints often leads to undesirable outcomes in children

(e.g., Hamon & Schrodt, 2012; Schrodt et al., 2008), it may nevertheless encourage individuals

to challenge their romantic partners more so than individuals who grow up in a family with

inconsistent (and often, non-existent) communication norms. Indeed, young adults from

protective families may experience a desire to create similar levels of harmony and consistency

in the beliefs, attitudes, and values they share with their romantic partner, which in turn may

encourage some forms of challenging behavior in their romantic relationship (albeit, at lower

levels than young adults from pluralistic and consensual families). Overall, then, the results for

H3 provide further evidence in support of Dailey’s (2008, 2010) contention that acceptance and

challenge represent two distinct dimensions of confirmation in familial and romantic

relationships. !

!


(Inter)parental Confirmation and Social Modeling!

The second set of implications revolves around young adult children’s perceptions of

(inter)parental confirmation and the degree to which their perceptions of such confirming

behavior are associated with confirmation in their interactions with their own romantic partners.

Specifically, the results of this study offer strong evidence in support of SLT, as young adults’

parents may, in fact, serve as influential examples of how to validate and acknowledge a

romantic partner’s perspective during interpersonal conversations. Perceptions of mother-to-

father confirmation and father-to-mother confirmation are positively associated with both

dimensions of confirmation in young adults’ romantic relationships (H4). One explanation for

this set of results can be found in Burleson and Kunkel’s (2002) work, as they found that parental

comfort and support serves as a teaching tool for children on how to provide support to their

peers. Their findings align with the tenets of SLT, namely, that children learn to communicate, to

an extent, through sub-processes of observation by watching their parents interact (Bandura,

1986). In light of their results and SLT, then, it makes sense that children who observe their

parents confirming each other are more likely to do so themselves in their own romantic

relationships. !

One of the most interesting findings from this study, however, was how sons and

daughters differ regarding whom they may be more influenced by in their immediate family

(RQ1). Specifically, sons’ perceptions of their mother’s confirming behavior (i.e., acceptance

and challenge) in the parent-child relationship is a stronger predictor of the frequency with

which they communicate in confirming ways to their romantic partner than are perceptions of

their father’s confirming behavior in the parent-child relationship. Not only does this finding

extend our understanding of how confirming behavior is modeled in family relationships, but it


offers empirical insight into the anecdotal belief that understanding about a romantic partner can

be gleaned by observing how he or she interacts with the opposite-sex parent. Specifically, it

provides further evidence for why sons may be more influenced by their mother’s and father’s

confirming behaviors in the parent-child relationship than daughters. For instance, Ellis (2002)

found that mother’s and father’s confirming behavior was a significant predictor of sons’

perceptions of their global self-worth, intellectual ability, creative ability, and appearance. Thus,

it stands to reason that the way in which parents, and particularly mothers, confirm their sons is

associated meaningfully with how sons view themselves and communicate with their romantic

partners.

For daughters, however, only perceptions of mother-to-father confirmation emerged as a

stronger predictor of the frequency with which they communicate acceptance of their romantic

partner than did perceptions of father-to-mother confirmation. While sons may be more

influenced by their mother’s confirmation toward themselves, daughters may be more affected

by watching their parents interact with one another. One possible explanation for this finding can

be found in Tannen’s (1990) genderlect theory, which posits that women use rapport

communication as a relational tool to seek connection with others. In other words, daughters may

value watching how their parents interact (and particularly, how mothers interact with fathers)

through verbal and nonverbal (dis)confirmation to build their relationship and model their own

relationships based on what they see. Indeed, previous research on FCPs and young adults’

communication competence has revealed a pattern consistent with gender socialization research,

highlighting the relational orientation into which many women are socialized (Schrodt et al.,

2009). While sons often construct their personal identities primarily through instrumental

communication by ways of individuation, daughters’ self-concepts are often characterized by a


sense of relatedness that orients them toward interpersonal relationships. Additionally, when

explaining the importance of mother confirmation to young adult children’s family satisfaction in

divorced families, Schrodt and Ledbetter (2012) argue that “most children (though not all)

develop more intimate relationships with their mothers” (p. 158). When coupled with the results

of the present study, then, these lines of research underscore the importance of mothers and their

spousal relationships to the social modeling of healthy communication behaviors in their

daughters’ romantic relationships.

FCPs, Interparental Confirmation, and Young Adults’ Romantic Relationships

The third, and perhaps most notable, implication that emerged from this study was that

FCPs and interparental confirmation were predictive of self-to-partner confirmation even after

controlling for the reciprocity of confirmation that may already exist within the romantic

relationship. The results indicate that both mother-to-father confirmation and father-to-mother

confirmation are positively associated with the degree to which young adults communicate in

accepting and challenging ways to their romantic partner, above and beyond any tendencies they

may have to reciprocate their partner’s confirming behavior. More importantly, different family

communication orientations emerge as significant predictors of accepting and challenging

behavior in romantic relationships after controlling for reciprocity within the relationship. One

explanation for the negative effect that conformity orientation has on an individual’s tendency to

communicate acceptance to his or her romantic partner can be found in Koerner and Cvancara’s

(2002) research, as they found that conformity-oriented family members are more self-oriented

than other-oriented during interpersonal conversations. Since acceptance involves

communicating positive regard for the other person, it may be that individuals who grow up in a


conformity-oriented family environment do not develop the relational schemas and information-

processing skills necessary for expressing warmth or actively listening to their romantic partner.

Conversation orientation, on the other hand, emerged as a positive predictor of

challenging one’s romantic partner even after controlling for interparental confirmation and

reciprocity. Families high in conversation orientation participate in open, unrestrained

interactions on a wide variety of topics which may, at times, create disagreement within the

family. Through these types of disagreements, family members may come to understand that

challenging each other to grow as individuals is part of what constitutes healthy family

relationships. By definition, challenge involves pushing a romantic partner to achieve greater

potential (Buber, 1965), and thus, it makes sense that an individual who has a relational schema

to engage in unrestrained conversations with family members may be more inclined to ask

questions, encourage their romantic partner to grow as an individual, and to channel negative

emotions into positive actions.

Finally, mother-to-father confirmation emerged as a significant predictor of both

acceptance and challenge even after controlling for FCPs and reciprocity of confirmation

between romantic partners. As noted earlier, mothers play a particularly important role in the

lives of their children during early adolescence, as they are often expected to be more relationally

confirming (Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2012). Likewise, SLT contends that individuals learn to

communicate, in part, by watching their parents interact as they develop into young adults

(Bandura, 1986). Given that children often develop a more intimate relationship with their

mother, they may be more likely to pay closer attention to, and model, their mother’s behavior

when she interacts with the father. These findings are meaningful, given that they provide further

evidence of social modeling within the family of origin as parents influence the ways in which


their children learn to use and understand confirming messages through observations of their

parents’ relationship.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Theoretically, the results of this study further support Noller’s (1995) argument that how

individuals learn to communicate in their families of origin has an effect on how they interact

within their romantic relationships. Specifically, they extend FCP theory by demonstrating that

the relational schemas that are formed in marital and parent-child interactions may provide a

“blueprint” of sorts for relationships beyond the family, and that it is through observation and

interaction with family members that individuals learn how (or how not) to confirm their

romantic partner. Furthermore, the results extend SLT by identifying the unique and combined

sources of (inter)parental modeling associated with young adult children’s confirming behavior

with their romantic partner. Previous researchers have investigated social modeling processes by

focusing on how children learn various communication behaviors from each individual parent.

Contrary to this trend, the results reported here extend this literature by offering insight into the

effects of both interparental confirmation and parent-child confirmation on young adult

children’s behaviors within their romantic relationships.

This study also adds to confirmation theory through its investigation of accepting and

challenging behaviors in both family and romantic relationships. Given the importance of

confirmation to an individual’s well being, as well as to relational satisfaction, it is important to

consider why individuals choose (or choose not) to confirm their romantic partner. Both

relational schemas that emerge from family interaction and (inter)parental modeling were

identified as theoretical mechanisms that contribute to young adult children’s tendencies to enact

confirmation in their romantic relationships. This study not only extends Dailey’s (2006, 2008,


2010) work on confirmation in parent-child relationships to confirmation in romantic

relationships, but it identifies different forms of confirmation (e.g., interparental confirmation)

that may predict whether individuals will enact accepting and challenging behaviors in their own

romantic relationships. While this study offers only preliminary explanations for why individuals

enact such behavior in romantic relationships, it may prompt future researchers to explore the

unique and combined effects of other variables that may affect the frequency with which

individuals confirm their romantic partner outside of the norm of reciprocity.

Practically speaking, the results of this study highlight the importance of considering why

individuals choose to behave the way that they do within their romantic relationships, and how

confirmation, in turn, can lead to relational (dis)satisfaction. The popular press has often

capitalized on reasons as to why romantic partners behave the way that they do, but these outlets

often offer little, if any, empirical insight into their claims. The findings presented here illustrate

that while individuals may be able to physically leave their family of origin when they enter into

young adulthood, they may still enact certain communication behaviors in their adult

relationships that they observed in their parents’ marriage. Moreover, these results can offer

guidance for understanding the importance of developing and sustaining a healthy family

communication environment where children are encouraged to develop and express their own

attitudes, beliefs, and opinions. This is not to say that children who come from low conversation-

oriented families are destined for failure in their romantic relationships. Rather, the results of this

study suggest that parents who model confirming behaviors in their marriage and who value

communicating about a wide variety of topics with their children may be more likely to raise

children who understand the importance of confirming their own romantic partners someday. At

a minimum, the results of this study underscore the importance of parental role models, as


parents’ behaviors toward their children and toward each other are likely to have a lasting impact

on their children’s understanding of what constitutes competent and healthy communication

behavior in romantic relationships.

Limitations and Future Directions

Of course, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution given the inherent

limitations of the research design. The most notable limitation to this study is that the data were

collected from only one member of the romantic relationship. Participants were asked to indicate

how frequently their romantic partner confirmed them in their relationships, but their answers

largely reflect individual perceptions rather observed behaviors. Consequently, future researchers

should consider using relational dyads as the unit of analysis and testing the degree to which

mutual influence and partner effects alter the associations reported here. Surveying dyads would

also give insight into the partner’s family of origin and FCPs.

A second limitation is the sole reliance on self-report data from a relatively homogenous

sample of young adult children (i.e., predominantly white, undergraduate students). Finally, the

cross-sectional research design and correlational nature of the data prevents statements of

causality. Longitudinal research that investigates FCPs and their influence on romantic

relationship quality over time is needed, as is future research that incorporates the perspectives of

both the parents and the romantic dyads involved.

Nevertheless, this study provides preliminary evidence to suggest that the

intergenerational transmission of confirmation through both the family communication

environment and the (inter)parental relationship provides one plausible explanation (albeit, an

incomplete one) for why individuals choose (or choose not) to communicate confirmation within

their romantic relationships. This research complements Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s (1997, 2002c)


work on conflict behaviors, as it may be the case that individuals’ conflict behaviors are not only

influenced by the communication schemas that emerge from FCPs, but also by observing how

parents interact during relational conflict. Indeed, future researchers can extend their work and

the results of this study by examining the link between sense-making behaviors that are learned

in the family of origin and attributions that individuals make of their romantic partner’s

behaviors. Through these types of investigations, researchers can add to our understanding of

family interactions and relational schemas that enhance our relationships outside of the family.


References

Aloia, L. S., & Solomon, D. H. (2013). Perceptions of verbal aggression in romantic

relationships: The role of family history and motivational systems. Western Journal of

Communication, 77, 411-423. doi:10.1080/10570314.2013.776098

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Buber, M. (1957). Distance and relation. Psychiatry, 20, 97-104.

Buber, M. (1965). The knowledge of man. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Burke, T. J., Woszidlo, A., & Segrin, C. (2013). The intergenerational transmission of social

skills and psychosocial problems among parents and their young adult children. Journal

of Family Communication, 13, 77-91. doi:10.1080/15267431.2913.768247

Burleson, B. R., Delia, J. G., & Applegate, J. L. (1992). Effects of maternal communication and

children’s social-cognitive and communication skills on children’s acceptance by the peer

group. Family Relations, 41, 264-272. doi:10.2307/585189

Burleson, B. R., & Kunkel, A. W. (2002). Parental and peer contributions to the emotional

support skills of the child: From whom do children learn to express support? Journal of

Family Communication, 2, 79-97. doi:10.2307/585189

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A., (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and

differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676


Cissna, K. N., & Sieburg, E. (1981). Patterns of interactional confirmation and disconfirmation.

In C. Wilder-Mott & J. H. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor and imagination: Essays from the

legacy of Gregory Bateson (pp. 253-282). New York, NY: Praeger.

Dailey, R. M. (2006). Confirmation in parent-adolescent relationships and adolescent openness:

Toward extending confirmation theory. Communication Monographs, 73, 434-458.

doi:10.1080/03637750601055432

Dailey, R. M. (2008). Parental challenge: Developing and validating a measure of how parents

challenge their adolescents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 643-669.

doi:10.1177/0265407508093784

Dailey, R. M. (2010). Testing components of confirmation: How acceptance and challenge from

mothers, fathers, and siblings are related to adolescent self-concept. Communication

Monographs, 77, 592-617. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.499366

Dailey, R. M., McCracken, A. A., & Romo, L. K. (2011). Confirmation and weight

management: Predicting effective levels of acceptance and challenge in weight

management messages. Communication Monographs, 78, 185-211.

doi:10.1080/03637751.2011.564638

Dailey, R. M., Romo, L. K., & Thompson, C. M. (2011). Confirmation in couples’

communication about weight management: An analysis of how both partners contribute

to individuals’ health behaviors and conversational outcomes. Human Communication

Research, 37, 553-582. doi:10.1111/j.1268-2958.2011.01414.x

Dangott, L., Thornton, B. C., & Page, P. (1979). Communication and pain. Journal of

Communication, 28, 30-35.


Durtschi, J. A., Cui, M., Donnellan, M. B., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D. (2010).

Intergenerational transmission of relationship aggression: A prospective longitudinal

study. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 688-697. doi:10.1037/a0021675

Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: The development and validation of an

instrument and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human

Communication Research, 26, 264-291. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000tb00758.x

Ellis, K. (2002). Perceived parental confirmation: Development and validation of an instrument.

Southern Communication Journal, 67, 319-334. doi:10.1080/10417940209373242

Fitzpatrick, M. A., Marshall, L. J., Leutwiler, T. J., & Kremer, M. (1996). The effect of family

communication environments on children’s social behavior during middle childhood.

Communication Research, 23, 379-406. doi:10.1177/009365096023004003

Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within the family:

Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 275-

301. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00324.x

Fowler, M., Pearson, J. C., & Beck, S. J. (2010). The influences of family communication

patterns on adult children’s perceptions of romantic behaviors. Journal of

Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota, 23, 1-11.

Gardner, K. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (2004). Social support communication in families. In A. L.

Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 495-512). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Garvin, B. & Kennedy, C. (1986). Confirmation and disconfirmation in nurse/physician

communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 14, 1-19.


Gottman, J. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail...and how you can make yours last. New

York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Guerrero, L. K. (1997). Nonverbal involvement across interaction with same-sex friends,

opposite sex friends and romantic partners: Consistency or change? Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 14, 31-58. doi:10.1177/0265407597141002

Hall, J. A. (2013). Humor in long-term romantic relationships: The association of general humor

styles and relationship-specific functions with relationship satisfaction. Western Journal

of Communication, 77, 272-292. doi:10.1080/10570314.2012.757796

Hamon, J. D., & Schrodt, P. (2012). Do parenting styles moderate the association between

family conformity orientation and young adults’ mental well-being?. Journal of Family

Communication, 12, 151-166. doi:10.1080/15267431.2011.561149

Horan, S. M., Houser, M. L., & Cowan, R. L. (2007). Are children communicated with equally?

An investigation of parent-child sex composition and gender role communication

differences. Communication Research Reports, 24, 361-372.

doi:10.1080/08824090701624262

Huang, L. (1999). Family communication patterns and personality characteristics.

Communication Quarterly, 47, 230-242. doi:10.1080/01463379909370136

Jiang, L. C., Bazarova, N. N., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). From perception to behavior: Disclosure

reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy in computer-mediated communication.

Communication Research, 40, 125-143. doi:10.1177/0093650211405313

Keaten, J., & Kelly, L. (2008). Emotional intelligence as a mediator of family communication

patterns and reticence. Communication Reports, 21, 104-116.

doi:10.1080/08934210802393008


Kelly, L., Keaten, J. A., Finch, C., Duarte, I. B., Hoffman, P., & Michels, M. M. (2002). Family

communication patterns and the development of reticence. Communication Education,

51, 202-209. doi:10.1080/03634520216506

Koerner, A. F., & Cvancara, K. E. (2002). The influence of conformity orientation on

communication patterns in family conversations. The Journal of Family Communication,

2, 133-152. doi:10.1207/S15327698JFC0203_2

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1996). Family communication patterns theory: A social

cognitive approach. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in

family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 50-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1997). Family time and conflict: The impact of

conversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the family.

Communication Studies, 48, 59-75. doi:10.1080/10510979709368491

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002a). Toward a theory of family communication.

Communication Theory, 12, 70-91. doi:10.1093/ct/12.1.70

Koerner A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002b). Understanding family communication patterns and

family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation.

Communication Yearbook, 26, 37-69. doi:10.1207/s15567419cy2601_2

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002c). You never leave your family in a fight: The

impact of family of origin on conflict-behavior in romantic relationships. Communication

Studies, 53, 234-251. Doi:10.1080/10510970209388588

Koesten, J. (2004). Family communication patterns, sex of subject, and communication

competence. Communication Monographs, 71, 226-244.

doi:10.1080/03637750520000343417


Kunkel, A., Hummert, M. L., & Dennis, M. R. (2006). Social learning theory: Modeling and

communication in the family context. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.),

Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 260-275).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Laing, R. D. (1961). The self and others. New York, NY: Pantheon.

Ledbetter, A. M. (2009). Family communication patterns and relational maintenance behavior:

Direct and mediated associations with friendship closeness. Human Communication

Research, 35, 130-147. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.01341.x

McLeod J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.),

The social influence process (pp. 177-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McLeod J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research.

American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 469-499.

Myers, S. A., & Ferry, M. F. (2001). Interpersonal communication motives and nonverbal

immediacy behaviors. Communication Research Reports, 18, 182-191.

Noller, P. (1995). Parent-adolescent relationships. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.),

Explaining family interactions (pp. 77-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rabby, M. K. (2007). Relational maintenance and the influence of commitment in online and

offline relationships. Communication Studies, 58, 315-337.

doi:10.1080/10510970701518405

Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an

organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P.

Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being:

The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 26, 419-435. doi:10.1177/0146167200266002

Ritchie, L. D. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring interpersonal perceptions of

interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523-544.

Ritchie, L. D. (1991). Family communication patterns: An epistemic analysis and conceptual

reinterpretation. Communication Research, 18, 548-565.

Rubin, Z. (1975). Disclosing oneself to a stranger: Reciprocity and its limits. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 233-260.

Schrodt, P. (2005). Family communication schemata and the circumplex model of family

functioning. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 359-376.

doi:10.1080/10570310500305539

Schrodt, P., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2012). Parental confirmation as a mitigator of feeling caught

and family satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 19, 146-161. doi:10.1111/j.1475-

6811.2010.01345.x

Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., Jernberg, K. A., Larson, L., Brown, N., & Glonek, K. (2009).

Family communication patterns as mediators of communication competence in the

parent-child relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 853-874.

doi:10.1177/0265407509345649

Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., & Ohrt, J. K. (2007). Parental confirmation and affection as

mediators of family communication patterns and children’s mental well-being. The

Journal of Family Communication, 7, 23-46. doi:10.1080/15267430709336667


Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Messersmith, A. S. (2008). A meta-analytical review of family

communication patterns and their associations with information processing, behavior, and

psychosocial outcomes. Communication Monographs, 75, 248-269.

doi:10.1080/03637750802256318

Sieburg, E. (1975). Interpersonal confirmation: A paradigm for conceptualization and

measurement. San Diego, CA: United States International University (ERIC Document

No. ED 098 634/CS 500-881).

Sieburg, E. (1985). Family communication: An integrated systems approach. New York, NY:

Gardner Press, Inc.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. New York, NY: Ballantine.

Taylor, M., & Segrin, C. (2010). Perceptions of parental gender roles and conflict styles and their

association with young adults’ relational and psychological well-being. Communication

Research Reports, 27, 230-242. doi:10.1080/08825096.2010.496326

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A

study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York, NY: Norton.

Weber, K., & Patterson, B. R. (1997). The effects of maternal verbal aggression on the adult

child’s future romantic relationships. Communication Research Reports, 14, 221-230.

doi:10.1080/08824099709388664

Weigel, D., Brown, C., & O’Riordan, C. K. (2011). Everyday expressions of commitment and

relational uncertainty as predictors of relationship quality and stability over time.

Communication Reports, 24, 38-50. doi:10.1080/08934215.2010.511400


Note

1The original sample included 46 participants from divorced families, bringing the initial

total to 227 participants. Given the theoretical focus of this study (i.e., parental modeling of

confirmation) and an inadequate number of participants from divorced families to conduct

appropriate statistical comparisons, these participants were excluded from the analysis.


Appendix

Family Communication Patterns, Parental Modeling, and Confirmation in Romantic Relationships Questionnaire DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Directions: In the following spaces, please circle or write the most appropriate response to each question. If there is a separate set of directions, please read those directions carefully and answer each question according to the directions for that section of the questionnaire. 1. What is your age? _________ 2. What is your biological sex (please circle one)? 1 Male 2 Female 3. What is your ethnicity or race? 1 White 4 Native American 2 African American 5 Asian American 3 Hispanic American 6 Other (please specify): _________________ 4. How would your best classify your current romantic relationship? 1 Romantic potential 2 Casual dating but little emotional attachment 3 Frequent dating but little emotional attachment 4 Some emotional attachment 5 Emotional attachment but not in love 6 In love 7 In love and would like to marry but have never discussed marriage 8 In love and have discussed marriage but have not made marriage plans 9 Engaged to be married 10 Spouse 5. How long have you been dating your partner? _________ years _________ months 6. Are your biological (or adoptive) parents married (circle) YES NO 6a. If your parents are still married, how long have they been married (in years)? _______________________ 7. Are both of your biological (or adoptive) parents living (circle)? YES NO 8. Are your biological (or adoptive) parents divorced (circle)? YES NO 8a. If you answered “yes” to question 6a, approximately how long has it been since your parents divorced? _______________________________ 8b. If your parents are divorced, how long were they married before they divorced? ___________________ 9. On average, how often do you talk with your MOTHER during a typical week? ________ hours ______ minutes 10. On average, how often do you talk with your FATHER during a typical week? ________ hours ______ minutes


Family Communication Patterns (RFCP Scale; Fitzpatrick & Ritchie, 1994) Directions: With your FAMILY OF ORIGIN in mind, please circle the number that best represents your level of agreement using the following scale:

Strongly Disagree

(SD)

Disagree Somewhat Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

(N)

Somewhat Agree

Agree Strongly Agree (SA)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SD

N

SA 1. 7+!*8-!,6.9:;!<5!*,=5+!=6:>!6?*8=!=*@9)A!:9>5!@*:9=9)A!6+B!-5:9C9*+!<D5-5!A*.5!@5*@:5!B9A6C-55!<9=D!*=D5-A$

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. ED5+!6+;=D9+C!-56::;!9.@*-=6+=!9A!9+F*:F5BG!.;!@6-5+=A!5H@5)=!.5!=*!*?5;!<9=D*8=!I85A=9*+$

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. 4;!@6-5+=A!*,=5+!A6;!A*.5=D9+C!:9>5!JKF5-;!.5.?5-!*,!=D5!,6.9:;!AD*8:B!D6F5!A*.5!A6;!9+!,6.9:;!B5)9A9*+A$L

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. 7+!*8-!D*.5G!.;!@6-5+=A!8A86::;!D6F5!=D5!:6A=!<*-B$! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. 4;!@6-5+=A!*,=5+!6A>!.;!*@9+9*+!<D5+!=D5!,6.9:;!9A!=6:>9+C!6?*8=!A*.5=D9+C$!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. 4;!@6-5+=A!,55:!=D6=!9=!9A!9.@*-=6+=!=*!?5!=D5!?*AA$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. 4;!@6-5+=A!5+)*8-6C5!.5!=*!)D6::5+C5!=D59-!9B56A!6+B!?5:95,A$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 4;!@6-5+=A!A*.5=9.5A!?5)*.5!9--9=6=5B!<9=D!.;!F95<A!9,!=D5!6-5!B9,,5-5+=!,-*.!=D59-!*<+$!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. 4;!@6-5+=A!*,=5+!A6;!A*.5=D9+C!:9>5G!JM*8!AD*8:B!6:<6;A!:**>!6=!?*=D!A9B5A!*,!6+!9AA85$L

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. 7,!.;!@6-5+=A!B*+N=!6@@-*F5!*,!9=G!=D5;!B*+N=!<6+=!=*!>+*<!6?*8=!9=$

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. 7!8A86::;!=5::!.;!@6-5+=A!<D6=!7!6.!=D9+>9+C!6?*8=!=D9+CA$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. 7!)6+!=5::!.;!@6-5+=A!6:.*A=!6+;=D9+C$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. ED5+!7!6.!6=!D*.5G!7!6.!5H@5)=5B!=*!*?5;!.;!@6-5+=AN!-8:5A$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. 7+!*8-!,6.9:;G!<5!*,=5+!=6:>!6?*8=!*8-!,55:9+CA!6+B!5.*=9*+A$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. 4;!@6-5+=A!*,=5+!A6;!=D9+CA!:9>5G!JM*8N::!>+*<!?5==5-!<D5+!;*8!C-*<!8@$L

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. 4;!@6-5+=A!6+B!7!*,=5+!D6F5!:*+CG!-5:6H5B!)*+F5-A6=9*+A!6?*8=!+*=D9+C!9+!@6-=9)8:6-$!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. 7!-56::;!5+O*;!=6:>9+C!<9=D!.;!@6-5+=AG!5F5+!<D5+!<5!B9A6C-55$! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. 4;!@6-5+=A!*,=5+!A6;!=D9+CA!:9>5G!J4;!9B56A!6-5!-9CD=!6+B!;*8!AD*8:B!+*=!I85A=9*+!=D5.$L

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. 4;!@6-5+=A!5+)*8-6C5!.5!=*!5H@-5AA!.;!,55:9+CA$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. 4;!@6-5+=A!*,=5+!A6;!=D9+CA!:9>5!JP!)D9:B!AD*8:B!+*=!6-C85!<9=D!6B8:=A$L

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21. 4;!@6-5+=A!=5+B!=*!?5!F5-;!*@5+!6?*8=!=D59-!5.*=9*+A$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. E5!*,=5+!=6:>!6A!6!,6.9:;!6?*8=!=D9+CA!<5!D6F5!B*+5!B8-9+C!=D5!B6;G

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23. 4;!@6-5+=A!*,=5+!A6;!=D9+CA!:9>5G!JQD5-5!6-5!A*.5!=D9+CA!=D6=!O8A=!AD*8:B+N=!?5!=6:>5B!6?*8=$L

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24. 7+!*8-!,6.9:;G!<5!*,=5+!=6:>!6?*8=!*8-!@:6+A!6+B!D*@5A!,*-!=D5!,8=8-5$

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25. 4;!@6-5+=A!*,=5+!A6;!=D9+CA!:9>5G!JM*8!AD*8:B!C9F5!9+!*+!6-C8.5+=A!-6=D5-!=D6+!-9A>!.6>9+C!@5*@:5!.6B$L

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26. 4;!@6-5+=A!:9>5!=*!D56-!.;!*@9+9*+G!5F5+!<D5+!7!B*+N=!6C-55$!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


ROMANTIC PARTNER-TO-SELF CONFIRMATION (Revised Parent Confirmation Behavior Indicator; Ellis, 2002) Directions: With your ROMANTIC PARTNER in mind, please circle the number that best represents your level of agreement using the following scale:

Never Seldom Occasionally Sometimes Often Very Often Always 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

My romantic partner . . .

Never

Sometimes

Always

1. Allows me to express negative feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Makes statements that communicate to me that I am a unique, valuable human being.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Demonstrates that he/she is genuinely listening when I am speaking about issues important to me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Belittles me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Ascribes motives to my actions (e.g., “You’re only doing this because . . .”).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Makes statements that communicate my ideas don’t count (e.g., “Can’t you do anything right?” “Just shut up and keep out of this” or “What do you know about this anyway?”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Makes statements that communicate my feelings are valid and real (e.g., “I’m sorry that you’re so disappointed, angry, etc.”).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Gives me undivided attention when engaged in private conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Maintains meaningful eye contact with me when we are engaged in a conversation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Asks how I feel about school, family issues, work, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Interrupts me during conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Gives clear, direct responses to me during conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Asks my opinion or solicits my viewpoint. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Discounts or explains away my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Engages in monologue (e.g., continues on and on with whatever he/she has to say, failing to acknowledge anything I have said or has tried to interject).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Gives impersonal responses (e.g., loaded with clichés or responses that do not truly respond to me).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. Goes off on unrelated tangents during conversations with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Criticizes my feelings when I express them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MOTHER-TO-SELF CHALLENGE (Dailey, 2008) Directions: Based on your experience with your MOTHER, circle the number that best describes your agreement with each statement.

Strongly Disagree

(SD)



(N)

Somewhat Agree


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ! 23! ! ! R! ! ! 2P!0$!4;!.*=D5-!D5:@A!.5!)D6++5:!.;!+5C6=9F5!5.*=9*+A!9+=*!.*-5!@*A9=9F5!6)=9*+A$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

&$!4;!.*=D5-!B9A)8AA5A!B9,,5-5+=!@5-A@5)=9F5A!<9=D!.5!-5C6-B9+C!)*.@:5H!9AA85A$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!


S$!4;!.*=D5-!6A>A!I85A=9*+A!=D6=!.6>5!.5!=D9+>$! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!%$!4;!.*=D5-!6+B!7!D6F5!@:6;,8:!6-C8.5+=A!6?*8=!9B56A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!1$!4;!.*=D5-!@8AD5A!.5!=*!=D9+>!6?*8=!*=D5-!@5*@:5UA!@5-A@5)=9F5A!V5$C$G!@8=!.;A5:,!9+!=D59-!AD*5AW$!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

'$!4;!.*=D5-!6A>A!.5!=*!5H@:69+!=D5!-56A*+9+C!?5D9+B!.;!B5)9A9*+A$!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

T$!4;!.*=D5-!9C+*-5A!.;!@5-A@5)=9F5!9,!9=!9A!B9,,5-5+=!,-*.!D5-A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!($!4;!.*=D5-!5+)*8-6C5A!.5!=*!5H@:*-5!B9,,5-5+=!9B56A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!X$!4;!.*=D5-!D5:@A!.5!8+B5-A=6+B!6+B!B56:!<9=D!.;!5.*=9*+A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!0#$!4;!.*=D5-!5+)*8-6C5A!.5!=*!.69+=69+!.;!@D;A9)6:!D56:=D$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!00$!4;!.*=D5-!.6>5A!.5!A8@@*-=!*-!B5,5+B!.;!*@9+9*+A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!0&$!4;!.*=D5-!.6>5A!.5!B56:!<9=D!=D5!)*+A5I85+)5A!*,!.;!B5)9A9*+A!*-!?5D6F9*-A$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

FATHER-TO-SELF CONFIRMATION (Revised Parent Confirmation Behavior Indicator; Ellis, 2002) Directions: With your FATHER in mind, please circle the number that best represents your level of agreement using the following scale:


My father . . .

Never

Sometimes

Always

1. Attends the sports events, music events, or other activities in which I participate.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Makes statements that communicate to me that I am a unique, valuable human being.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Demonstrates that he is genuinely listening when I am speaking about issues important to me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Belittles me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Allows me to express negative feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Makes statements that communicate my ideas don’t count (e.g., “Can’t you do anything right?” “Just shut up and keep out of this” or “What do you know about this anyway?”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Gives me undivided attention when engaged in private conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Maintains meaningful eye contact with me when we are engaged in a conversation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Ascribes motives to my actions (e.g., “You’re only doing this because . . .”).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. Gives appropriate facial responses such as smiling or nodding during conversations with me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. Gives clear, direct responses to me during conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Asks my opinion or solicits my viewpoint. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Discounts or explains away my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Engages in monologue (e.g., continues on and on with whatever he or she has to say, failing to acknowledge anything I have said or tries to interject).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Interrupts me during conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Gives impersonal responses (e.g., loaded with clichés or responses that do not truly respond to me).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


18. Criticizes my feelings when I express them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Ignores my attempts to express my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Goes off on unrelated tangents during conversations with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FATHER-TO-MOTHER CONFIRMATION (Revised Parent Confirmation Behavior Indicator; Ellis, 2002) Directions: With your FATHER’S behavior towards your MOTHER in mind, please circle the number that best represents your level of agreement using the following scale:


My father . . .

Never

Sometimes

Always

1. Sends my mother double messages (verbal and nonverbal messages that differ).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Makes statements that communicate to my mother that she is a unique, valuable human being.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Demonstrates that he is genuinely listening when my mother is speaking about issues important to her.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Belittles my mother. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Ignores my mother while in the same room. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Makes statements that communicate my mother’s ideas don’t count (e.g., “Can’t you do anything right?” “Just shut up and keep out of this” or “What do you know about this anyway?”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Makes statements that communicate my mother’s feelings are valid and real (e.g., “I’m sorry that you’re so disappointed, angry, etc.”).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Goes off on unrelated tangents during conversations with my mother. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Maintains meaningful eye contact with my mother when they are engaged in a conversation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Discounts or explains away my mother’s feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Gives appropriate facial responses such as smiling or nodding during conversations with my mother.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. Gives clear, direct responses to my mother during conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Asks my mother’s opinion or solicits her viewpoint. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Interrupts my mother during conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Gives my mother ambiguous (unclear, vague) responses. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Allows my mother to express negative feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MOTHER-TO-SELF CONFIRMATION (Revised Parent Confirmation Behavior Indicator; Ellis, 2002) Directions: With your MOTHER in mind, please circle the number that best represents your level of agreement using the following scale:


My mother . . .

Never

Sometimes

Always


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Gives me undivided attention when engaged in private conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Demonstrates that she is genuinely listening when I am speaking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


about issues important to me. 4. Gives appropriate facial responses such as smiling or nodding during conversations with me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Gives impersonal responses (e.g., loaded with clichés or responses that do not truly respond to me).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Allows me to express negative feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Attends the sports events, music events, or other activities in which I participate.!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Makes statements that communicate to me that I am a unique, valuable human being.!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Maintains meaningful eye contact with me when we are engaged in a conversation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Interrupts me during conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Belittles me.! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Gives clear, direct responses to me during conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Goes off on unrelated tangents during conversations with me.! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Discounts or explains away my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Engages in monologue (e.g., continues on and on with whatever he or she has to say, failing to acknowledge anything I have said or tries to interject).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Ascribes motives to my actions (e.g., “You’re only doing this because . . .”).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. Makes statements that communicate my ideas don’t count (e.g., “Can’t you do anything right?” “Just shut up and keep out of this” or “What do you know about this anyway?”)!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. Criticizes my feelings when I express them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Ignores my attempts to express my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Asks my opinion or solicits my viewpoint. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MOTHER-TO-FATHER CONFIRMATION (Revised Parent Confirmation Behavior Indicator; Ellis, 2002) Directions: With your MOTHER’S behavior towards your FATHER in mind, please circle the number that best represents your level of agreement using the following scale:


My mother . . .

Never

Sometimes

Always

1. Demonstrates that she is genuinely listening when my father is speaking about issues important to him.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Makes statements that communicate to my father that he is a unique, valuable human being.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Goes off on unrelated tangents during conversations with my father. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Belittles my father. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Allows my father to express negative feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Sends my father double messages (verbal and nonverbal messages that differ).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Ignores my father while in the same room. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Interrupts my father during conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Maintains meaningful eye contact with my father when they are engaged in a conversation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Makes statements that communicate my father’s feelings are valid and real (e.g., “I’m sorry that you’re so disappointed, angry, etc.”).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


11. Gives appropriate facial responses such as smiling or nodding during conversations with my father.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. Gives clear, direct responses to my father during conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Asks my father’s opinion or solicits his viewpoint. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Discounts or explains away my father’s feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Makes statements that communicate my father’s ideas don’t count (e.g., “Can’t you do anything right?” “Just shut up and keep out of this” or “What do you know about this anyway?”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Gives my father ambiguous (unclear, vague) responses. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SELF-TO-ROMANTIC PARTNER CONFIRMATION (Revised Parent Confirmation Behavior Indicator; Ellis, 2002) Directions: Thinking about YOUR behavior toward your ROMANTIC PARTNER, please circle the number that best represents your level of agreement using the following scale:


I . . .

Never

Sometimes

Always 1. Give my romantic partner undivided attention when engaged in private conversations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Ask my romantic partner’s opinion or solicit his/her viewpoint. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Demonstrate that I am genuinely listening when my romantic partner is speaking about issues important to him/her.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Interrupt my romantic partner during conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Make statements that communicate my romantic partner’s feelings are valid and real (e.g., “I’m sorry that you’re so disappointed, angry, etc.”).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Go off on unrelated tangents during conversations with my romantic partner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Discount or explain away my romantic partner’s feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Give clear, direct responses to my romantic partner during conversations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Criticize my romantic partner’s feelings when he/she expresses them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Maintain meaningful eye contact with my romantic partner when we are engaged in a conversation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. Make statements that communicate to my romantic partner that he/she is a unique, valuable human being.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. Allow my romantic partner to express negative feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Make statements that communicate my romantic partner’s ideas don’t count (e.g., “Can’t you do anything right?” “Just shut up and keep out of this” or “What do you know about this anyway?”)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. Give my romantic partner impersonal responses (e.g., loaded with clichés or responses that do not truly respond to my romantic partner).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. Engage in monologue (e.g., continue on and on with whatever I have to say, failing to acknowledge anything that my romantic partner has said or tries to interject).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Ascribe motives to my romantic partner’s actions (e.g., “You’re only doing this because . . .”).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. Ask how my romantic partner feels about school, family issues, work, etc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. Belittle my romantic partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


ROMANTIC PARTNER-TO-SELF CHALLENGE (Dailey, 2008) Directions: Based on your experience with your ROMANTIC PARTNER, circle the number that best describes your agreement with each statement.

Strongly Disagree

(SD)



(N)

Somewhat Agree


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ! 23! ! ! R! ! ! 2P!0$!4;!@6-=+5-!.6>5A!.5!A8@@*-=!*-!B5,5+B!.;!*@9+9*+A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!&$!4;!@6-=+5-!D5:@A!.5!)D6++5:!.;!+5C6=9F5!5.*=9*+A!9+=*!.*-5!@*A9=9F5!6)=9*+A$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

S$!4;!@6-=+5-!9C+*-5A!.;!@5-A@5)=9F5!9,!9=!9A!B9,,5-5+=!,-*.!D5-AYD9A$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

%$!4;!@6-=+5-!@8AD5A!.5!=*!=D9+>!6?*8=!*=D5-!@5*@:5UA!@5-A@5)=9F5A!V5$C$G!@8=!.;A5:,!9+!=D59-!AD*5AW$!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

1$!4;!@6-=+5-!5+)*8-6C5A!.5!=*!.69+=69+!.;!@D;A9)6:!D56:=D$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!'$!4;!@6-=+5-!6A>A!.5!=*!5H@:69+!=D5!-56A*+9+C!?5D9+B!.;!B5)9A9*+A$!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

T$!4;!@6-=+5-!5+)*8-6C5A!.5!=*!5H@:*-5!B9,,5-5+=!9B56A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!($!4;!@6-=+5-!6A>A!I85A=9*+A!=D6=!.6>5!.5!=D9+>$! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!X$!4;!@6-=+5-!D5:@A!.5!8+B5-A=6+B!6+B!B56:!<9=D!.;!5.*=9*+A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!0#$!4;!@6-=+5-!6+B!7!D6F5!@:6;,8:!6-C8.5+=A!6?*8=!9B56A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!00$!4;!@6-=+5-!B9A)8AA5A!B9,,5-5+=!@5-A@5)=9F5A!<9=D!.5!-5C6-B9+C!)*.@:5H!9AA85A$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

0&$!4;!@6-=+5-!.6>5A!.5!B56:!<9=D!=D5!)*+A5I85+)5A!*,!.;!B5)9A9*+A!*-!?5D6F9*-A$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

SELF-TO-ROMANTIC PARTNER CHALLENGE (Dailey, 2010) Directions: Based on your experience with your ROMANTIC PARTNER, circle the number that best describes your agreement with each statement.

Strongly Disagree

(SD)



(N)

Somewhat Agree


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ! 23! ! ! R! ! ! 2P!0$!7!5+)*8-6C5!.;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-!=*!5H@:*-5!B9,,5-5+=!9B56A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!&$!7!B9A)8AA!B9,,5-5+=!@5-A@5)=9F5A!<9=D!.;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-!-5C6-B9+C!)*.@:5H!9AA85A$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

S$!7!6A>!I85A=9*+A!=D6=!.6>5!.;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-!=D9+>$! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!%$!7!@8AD!.;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-!=*!=D9+>!6?*8=!*=D5-!@5*@:5UA!@5-A@5)=9F5A!V5$C$G!@8=!=D5.A5:F5A!9+!=D59-!AD*5AW$!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

1$!7!.6>5!.;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-!B56:!<9=D!=D5!)*+A5I85+)5A!*,!D9AYD5-!B5)9A9*+A!*-!?5D6F9*-A$!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

'$!7!6A>!.;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-!=*!5H@:69+!=D5!-56A*+9+C!?5D9+B!D9AYD5-!B5)9A9*+A$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

T$!7!5+)*8-6C5!.;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-!=*!.69+=69+!D9AYD5-!@D;A9)6:!D56:=D$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

($!7!D5:@!.;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-!)D6++5:!D9AYD5-!+5C6=9F5!5.*=9*+A! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!


9+=*!.*-5!@*A9=9F5!6)=9*+A$!!X$!7!9C+*-5!.;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-NA!@5-A@5)=9F5!9,!9=!9A!B9,,5-5+=!,-*.!.;!*<+$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

0#$!7!.6>5!.;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-!A8@@*-=!*-!B5,5+B!D9AYD5-!*@9+9*+A$!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

00$!7!D5:@!.;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-!8+B5-A=6+B!6+B!B56:!<9=D!D9AYD5-!5.*=9*+A$!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

0&$!4;!-*.6+=9)!@6-=+5-!6+B!7!D6F5!@:6;,8:!6-C8.5+=A!6?*8=!9B56A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T! FATHER-TO-SELF CHALLENGE (Dailey, 2008) Directions: Based on your experience with your FATHER, circle the number that best describes your agreement with each statement.

Strongly Disagree

(SD)



(N)

Somewhat Agree


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ! 23! ! ! R! ! ! 2P!0$!4;!,6=D5-!D5:@A!.5!)D6++5:!.;!+5C6=9F5!5.*=9*+A!9+=*!.*-5!@*A9=9F5!6)=9*+A$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

&$!4;!,6=D5-!B9A)8AA5A!B9,,5-5+=!@5-A@5)=9F5A!<9=D!.5!-5C6-B9+C!)*.@:5H!9AA85A$!!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

S$!4;!,6=D5-!6A>A!I85A=9*+A!=D6=!.6>5!.5!=D9+>$! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!%$!4;!,6=D5-!6+B!7!D6F5!@:6;,8:!6-C8.5+=A!6?*8=!9B56A$!! 0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!1$!4;!,6=D5-!@8AD5A!.5!=*!=D9+>!6?*8=!*=D5-!@5*@:5UA!@5-A@5)=9F5A!V5$C$G!@8=!.;A5:,!9+!=D59-!AD*5AW$!

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

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

0! &! S! %! 1! '! T!

Documents

Running head: FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS, PARENTAL